ss
xs
sm
md
lg
xl
xxl

First Amendment

The November 2018 issue of the Nevada Lawyer magazine, which was curated by King Durham partner Chad D. Olsen, includes articles on important First Amendment topics, such as Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP law, free speech in private employment, public records, and restraining media coverage following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Quoting in part Justice Kennedy, the issue-editor column reminds us that:

The First Amendment mandates protection to all; it unites us under the banner of protecting and accepting our differences. Whether conservative or liberal, religious or atheist, or none of the above, when it comes to free speech, a threat to one of us is a threat to all of us. The First Amendment presupposes that “one’s beliefs should be shaped by [his or her] mind and … conscience rather than coerced by the State.” This is the “heart” and “philosophy of the First Amendment, and it is the article of faith that sets us apart from most nations in the world.” Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 234–35 (1977); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 73 (1973). Indeed:

… it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” [citation omitted]. It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come.

Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2379 (2018) (Kennedy, J., concurring).